Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Singh vs Virender Singh And Others on 18 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053040
2024:PHHC:053040
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-951-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.04.2024
Satpal Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Virender Singh and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate for the appellant
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. This is the plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal against the
concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while
dismissing his suit for the grant of decree of declaration with a
consequential relief of possession as also the mandatory injunction and
permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the land
measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas by virtue of a sale deed dated 22.10.1992,
which is equivalent to 1600 sq.yards. The plaintiff claims that he has
constructed his house and defendants have dispossessed him. The
defendants contested the suit by claiming that a colony has been carved
out and there was no plot of the size of 1600 sq. yards. At one stage, the
suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 21.09.2012,
however, the First Appellate Court remanded the case back to the trial
court for fresh decision after getting entire property demarcated with the
help of GPS based Theodolite. Ultimately, the court came to the
conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of 1000 sq. yards and the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053040
RSA-951-2021 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:053040
plaintiff purchased the property in a planned and developed colony and
there was no plot of 1600 sq. yards.
2. Learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
sale deed in favour of the appellant is of 1600 sq. yards and therefore,
the courts have erred in declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to only
1000 sq. yards.
3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties.
4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel
representing the appellant has also produced a copy of the lay out plan
Ex.P-3/A. It is evident that not even a single plot of the size of 1600 sq.
yards is part of the planned colony. Moreover, while carving out plots,
some area has been left for laying out roads and streets. The plaintiff
purchased the property when the colony had already been carved out.
Each plot was assigned a separate numerical number. The sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff is after the colony had been carved out. In the sale
deed, the plots numbers have not been mentioned. If the plaintiff is
declared owner of the property, he will atleast claim possession of four
plots because behind the back of the plot measuring 1000 sq. Yards,
there are plots measuring 200 sq. yards each. In other words, the
plaintiff will have to be declared owner of as many as 4 plots which is
not even specified in the sale deed. The plaintiff has also not shown as
to how he purchased the property by referring to khasra number,
particularly once the plot numbers were assigned in a developed colony.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053040
RSA-951-2021 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:053040
Moreover, both the courts, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded
concurrent findings of fact.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere
is made out.
6. Hence, dismissed.
7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
18.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
